White House Claims Executive Privilege After Claiming VP, Pres Not Executives

Related :

- Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
- Bush claims oversight exemption too
- House Claims executive privilege to avoid senate subpoenas

But I thought they said they were not executives?

After all it was only a few days ago that Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he did not have to comply with executive record keeping laws because he is not an executive. The next day the President made the same claim.

In Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution it is written:

"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."

Meaning the president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. So not only is the President an executive, he is the executive.

So a few days ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not executives, but now they are executives so it turns out they have executive privilege?

This is quite a grandstanding claim to make. You can't have it both ways.

You can't claim you are not an executive but have executive privilege.

You can't claim your not an executive to avoid record keeping laws and then claim you don't have to show the records anyway because you have executive privilege. It just doesn't work that way in a system of logic and truth. It doesn't work that way in a democracy either, by the way.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats need to be on every talk show in America informing the American people about the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and making the case against the Bush Administration.

As for the media, what can I say? They have failed the American people by not enlightening them about the terribly abnormal time we are living in. They refuse to go into details thinking the American people are too stupid to understand them. They refuse to offer insightful exposes in fear of being called "unpatriotic" by the treasonous bastards who have hijacked this country and used it as a weapon of war. They fail to provide balance and wisdom, instead we get Paris Hilton and Tom Delay.

These are last ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to avoid oversight and accountability. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then it should have no problems handing over it's records.

The true problem lies in what is in the documents the Bush Administration is trying so desperately to keep secret from the rest of the government.

What is perhaps ironic is that the Bush Administration is fighting to keep documents about the warrantless wiretapping program secret, when all along the Bush Administration claimed that if Americans were not doing anything illegal then they should not be worried about all their personal emails and phone calls being monitored by the NSA.

The same logic can be applied to the documents which the Bush administration is trying to keep secret from Congress and the National Archives. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then why is it so afraid of sharing it's information with the rest of the government?

And don't even try to feed me that "national security" BS, it's not going to work.

To The Democrats : Push Has Come To Shove

The Democrats are afraid to use their power against the Bush Administration and the corruption that has engulfed the majority of the Republican party.

Some of this apprehension may stem from the fact that the Bush Administration has spent the past 6 years routinely abusing power.

Perhaps this makes the Democrats fear they could be perceived in the same partisan and powerhungry way if they became too zealous in going after the Bush Administration and their corrupted lackey's for their overt crimes.

So the result is this : The Republicans refuse to carry out the will of the majority of the American people and the Democrats are still afraid to.

I don't care if I anger or offend my Democratic friends, the time has come that we put all the energy that we put into exposing the Bush Administration and Republicans into pressuring the Democrats into taking action on it.

Why? Because the future of our country depends on it. It's really that simple.

We as Democrats are constantly accused of being "weak" by the other side. I believe it is high time the Democrats start asserting themselves and reclaiming the power of Congress. This horse and pony show that has been going on for the last six years has got to end.

The Democrats seem afraid to push back at the Bush Administration and the Republican minority for their blatant abuse and disrespect of our laws and our system of checks and balances.

I shouldn't need to remind anyone about the battering the image of the United States has suffered under the leadership of George W. Bush and his Republican enablers.

This is not normal. This is not even close to how things are supposed to be, the policies of our nation have drifted far beyond the realm of the norm. This is not just another war and this is not just another bad President, this is an utter breakdown of civility and accountability in the highest office of the land.

The American people are not content with the current state of affairs and the Democrats need to establish themselves as those who bring justice to the American people by making genuine efforts to end the war in Iraq and hold the Bush Administration accountable for it's questionable acts and decisions.

The Democrats should not relent in their pursuit of the truth regarding the Attorney General scandal and the politicization of the Justice Department.

We are now just receiving new information about the horrors that were committed at Abu Ghraib, including a recording of the forced sodomization of a female inmate and a man who was sexually humiliated in front of his son.

It is time for the real Democrats to shove back, not only against the Bush Administration and the GOP, but also against the people within the party who are preventing them from making progress in these areas.

If the Democrats fail to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their actions they will damage not only the Democratic Party but the next phase of this country.

There is much work to be done and many balances to correct, I don't think enough people realize how close we were to something I could only describe as a silent coup that used 9/11 and the "War on Terror" as a pretext for control.

The Democrats should not be afraid of using the power that the voters gave them.

The American voters did not vote for Democrats to see the war grow larger and the Bush Administration grow bolder.

No, the American people gave Democrats the power of Congress because they wanted to see the War in Iraq come to an end and they no longer trusted the Republicans to hold the Bush Administration accountable.

The Democrats seemed to realize this in the early hours after they were elected, but something has made them back down from the stance which we all assumed would be much more aggressive.

Of course the Republicans and the Bush Administration is going to attack every move you make and try to make it sound as disastrous as possible, that is something the Democrats are going to need to learn to deal with.

It's quite natural the Republicans attack the Democrats if the Democrats are trying to hold them responsible for their actions, but it doesn't make them right.

Push has come to shove, and if you ask me it's time to fight, not play nice with the people who have nearly destroyed our image and the checks and balances of the our nation.

Rudy's Twelve Commandments, er, Commitments

Rudy Giuliani has released a grocery list of things he claims he will be able to do if he were to become President. Giuliani's commandments, er, commitments are in bold text. They are as follows :


"I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us."

Does that mean bombing the hell out of all Muslim nations? You know, fight them before they even get a chance to fight us?

"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation."

How does Giuliani propose he carries this massive feat off? 200 foot high fences and laser precision missiles on the border? Does Giuliani have a task force mounted that is going to knock on every door in America and identify every non-citizen? Didn't think so.

"I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending."

I guess you better get rid of all the politicians and lobbyist then.

"I will cut taxes and reform the tax code."

Translation : I will give the rich more tax cuts, find ways to make the poor pay more. I will put less money into health care and welfare.

"I will impose accountability on Washington."

Ah, buddy, the minute you enter the White House the accountability of Washington will hit rock bottom.

"I will lead America towards energy independence."

Really? That sounds odd coming from the guy who's firm has a very oil rich client, Hugo Chavez.

"I will give Americans more control over, and access to, health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions."

"Portable free market solutions?" Hmm. Sounds like a capitalist solution. A solution that pumps money into the health care systems pockets without actually improving the quality of care patients.

"I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children."

How? How does Socrates here think he is going to "increase adoptions, decrease abortions"? Birthing bribes? Adoption bribes? Common... Giuliani is only talking about adoption because he is pro-abortion and trying to avoid that subject.

"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges."

Whatever, stay away from my legal system, serpentine one. Just step back and put the judges down Giuliani. I don't think your friend Tony Soprano over there will do a very keen job of reforming the legal system.

"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters."

Every community? Yeah right superman. Aren't you the guy who like put emergency response IN the world trade centers? Yeah... You can't even keep us safe from the thief's, rapist and murders in every community, let alone the terrorist. There is no such thing as 100% secure.

"I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents."

I don't have much to say about this one except that I know it's not the truth. Sounds good, and that is the point, Giuliani will never actually do any of these things, even if he is elected.

"I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world."

Globalism baby! Say yes to American dominion! Never mind that is part of the reason other people hate us! Everyone in the world has to drink Coke and eat Hershey Bars and be wasteful otherwise they must not be happy, right? Seriously, how is Giuliani going to strengthen our reputation? Giuliani is pro Iraq War, pro stirring up tensions in the Middle East. How would another Bush strengthen our reputation?

"And I am Superman and I can make everything all better, including the weather."

Well, I just made that one up.

Back down to earth, Giuliani has composed this political poetry and some people will actually buy it. These people will think "boy, this Giuliani guy really has a plan for America" when in reality anyone can say these kinds of things to get elected.

Notice that the first three "commitments" are Conservative red meat, Giuliani is trying to position himself as strong on security, immigration and fiscal responsibility because Conservatives find everything else about the man utterly repulsive, and I can't say I blame them.

Furthermore, if I hear too many "commitments" from a single politician I grow suspicious. After all, there are only so many commitments a single politician can fulfill, the more they make the more they break, and that saying goes for Democrats and Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani can't possibly carry out all of these commitments, even if he wanted to, which I sincerely doubt.

But the Rudester realizes there is a whole constituency of voters who actual believe this kind of unrealistic dribble. Undecided voters are the easiest people in America to hoodwink and Giuliani is taking full advantage of this fact.

Rudy Giuliani suddenly gets security expert status because his city was attacked on 9/11? The guy who couldn't keep New York safe from terrorist is supposed to keep the entire country safe from terrorist? Common, you have got to be kidding me.

To make a long post short(er) no one should believe in a grocery list of commitments coming from any politician, specifically if that politician has a history of flip flopping on social issues.

I can grab some index cards and scribble something meaningful on them that I think will entice most Americans to like and trust in me, but then I would be lowering myself to the level of lying, or at the very least exaggerating what my capabilities or intentions actually are, just like Rudiani did.

Hopefully Americans are not the brain-dead fear drones they were in 2004. Hopefully they realize that what Rudy Giuliani is proclaiming about his abilities to secure America is far fetched in the light of the fact that his city was attacked by Islamic extremist in 2001 after it should have had some foresight, after all it had already been attacked in 1993.

Rudy Giuliani's self proclaimed security and emergency expertise doesn't match up very well with his true record and earning the scorn of the largest and most trusted Firefighters Union in the US after 9/11 doesn't say so much about Giuliani's real credentials, if you know what I mean.

Tell Rudy Giuliani to quit capitalizing off from 9/11, it was the worst day in recent history, and to politicians who try to elevate themselves because of that day - shame on you.

New Subpoenas In The Eternal General Scandal

It's going to be interesting to watch the "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales scandal play out.

The AP is reporting that subpoenas have been issued "for testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor on their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors, according to two officials familiar with the investigation."

This is where this lethargic and cumbersome scandal can possibly get much more interesting.

The following is all theory, only conjecture at this point, the evidence has yet to be unveiled.

If Harriet Miers was involved with the politicization of the justice system this could have serious implications because at one point in time Bush nominated auntie Harriet to serve on the Supreme Court, of course that bid failed.

That could have been the final nail in the casket, the cork in the bottle, the ace in the hole, the bullet that stopped the heart of our ailing democracy.

In that situation not only would the Justice Department be politicized, the Supreme Court would be as well. That scenario calls into question the other nominations of Bush that did succeed, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Remember, Bush had the luxury of choosing 2 supreme court justices and if the goal was to politicize justice then the Supreme Court would have to be stacked.

Back to the here and now, the failure of the Alberto Gonzales "no confidence" vote has been nagging at me. But it was in the middle of all this fuming that I realized that Alberto Gonzales is doing himself and the plan he was involved in a great disservice by not resigning.

If the "no confidence" vote had passed and/or Alberto Gonzales had resigned it would be likely the problem would be declared as solved, life would go on and we would never be able to get to the root of and produce the evidence of what exactly happened at the Justice Department and what the ultimate goal was.

I also realized that the more Alberto Gonzales resisted resignation and the more the Bush Administration refused to cooperate the harder the Democrats would justifiably push back.

Now we have subpoenas for Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, and we are going to eventually fully expose this fanatical plan to politicize the justice system and we are going to figure out the true and long term intentions of trying to hatch such a plan, and I am sure it isn't all daisies.

UPDATE: Why Sara Taylor is also important

Republicans More Concerned About Partisanship Than Integrity Of The Justice Department

Related :
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote

Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?

The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.

If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.

Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.

One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.

Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT

The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either

A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
OR
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.

Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".

By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.

I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.

Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.

In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.

Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.

Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.

Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.

Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.

Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.

Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.

The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.

Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.

Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.

International Activists Say Bush Has Lost Credibility On Democracy

International Activists Say Bush Has Lost Credibility On Democracy

Well, duh...

Attorney General Scandal Update

- Bradley Schlozman 101: How To Politicize The Justice Department
- Leahy To Schlozman: ‘You’re Trying To Break Gonzales’ Record’ Of Saying ‘I Don’t Recall’
- Gonzales Contradicts His Sworn Testimony About Bush’s Warrantless Spying Program
- Schlozman’s Inadvertent Confession: Any Group That Works With Minorities Is ‘Liberal’
- Schlozman Admits To ‘Boasting’ About The Number Of Republicans He Hired

"We'll Leave When The Iraqi's Ask Us To Leave"

So has been the mantra of the Bush Administration since at least 2004 : that if the Iraqi Government wanted the United States to leave Iraq the United States would comply. Or so the statement suggest. Even Colin Powell claimed America would leave Iraq if asked by the new leadership.

The most recent occurrence I can find of the Bush Administration "we'll leave if the Iraqi's want us to leave" myth is May 24, 2007, when President Bush again repeated the empty slogan when addressing reporters when he was still battling Congress about “arbitrary timetables” in the Iraq spending bill.

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave." Bush claimed.

Invitation huh? Did the invitation go something like "Hey you! American guys!! Come over here! Come occupy us, we invite you!! Please, steal our oil while your here!" I must have missed the press conference in which the Iraqi government that didn't exist yet invited us to occupy Iraq.

But in all seriousness here is what happened...

According to IraqSlogger :

"Iraqi Parliament voted on Tuesday to approve a decision that gives it the upper hand in deciding any future extension of the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, according to Sadrist MP Nassar Al-Rubai'i.

Al-Rubai'i said that 85 legislators, out of 144 present, voted in support of the bill. "The vote came after a bill submitted by the Sadrist Bloc to the parliament, which stated that all decisions to extend the presence of the occupying forces in Iraq should be referred to the parliament," al-Rubaie told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).

Some Iraqi parliamentarians, most notably Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman, had stated weeks ago that the vote would be regarded as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require withdrawal." (Emphasis is mine)

So in other words, over half the Iraqi government that voted wants us to leave YET the Iraqi government is unwilling to pass a law saying so, they can only manage a non-binding petition. Sounds like they have about as much spine as some of the politicians I know ... However, it is a statement so is Bush listening?

I wouldn't bet on it.

The Sadrist Bloc only holds 30 seats in the 275 member Iraqi parliament and doesn't even make up the majority of the votes cast in support of the petition, blowing the whole "only the extremists want us to leave" line right out of the water.

We have also known for quite some time that the majority of the Iraqi people want us gone and feel their lives are worse now than under Saddam Hussein. I don't think anyone needs to remind anyone else that the majority of this country is opposed to the war as well.

The petition is non-binding but is a clear indication that the Iraqi government is going to ask us to leave for real sooner than latter. What will George Bush do when the Iraqi government asks the United States to leave? Will he respect the wishes of a sovereign government?

Again, I wouldn't bet on it.

Republicans To Debate On CNN Tonight

Tonight the Republicans will face off in their debate on CNN, having two days to brush up on their talking points and to create rebuttals from statements made by the Democrats the Republicans should be ready for battle.

The actor who wants to be President, Fred Thompson has decided to skip out on the event. This is not a surprising development considering a former colleague of Thompson indicated that "he didn't like to work real hard" and a veteran lobbyist said "He was viewed as a lazy son of gun who would say at two in the afternoon, 'I'm done.' Can you name one major piece of legislation he authored? I can't." Sounds like Fred Thomspon is too lazy to be President.

However tonight the spotlight will be on Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, three choices the GOP base is not exactly thrilled with, so watching the sport of Conservatives try to out-Reagan Ronald Reagan ought to be interesting.

So, the other day I prepared some questions for the Democrats, today I prepare some questions for the Republicans.

Question for Mitt Romney :
What kind of terrible person names their child "Tag"? Hahaha, no, here's the real question :

Who is Mitt Romney, really? Explain to me how you reconcile your very Liberal past in which you claimed you were "far left" of Kennedy to social Conservatives. One can say they "saw the light" but how do you plan on convincing Conservative voters you will not just flip back to the other side when it becomes convenient to do so?

Question for Rudolf Giuliani :

As mayor of New York you witnessed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. You built on your role as a savior of the city and as "America's mayor." Your now campaigning as a hero in the aftermath of 9/11 - yet the firefighters union has spoken out publicly against you, saying you hampered search and rescue efforts. Why should Americans continue to see you as a hero in the aftermath of 9/11 when the real hero's of that day claim you hurt their efforts?

Question for John McCain :

Months ago you took a trip to Baghdad in which you claimed real progress was being made and that westerners could walk freely on the streets of Baghdad. To illustrate your point you went to a Baghdad marketplace surrounded by 100 soldiers and four helicopters. Your marketplace trip drew a lot of criticism, many said if Baghdad was as safe as you were claiming it was that there would be no need for such kind of protection.

Although you have been a big supporter of President Bush's policy in Iraq you have stated that you do not see a "Plan B" if the troop buildup in Iraq does not succeed.

Why should the voters trust you to lead their country when you have given inaccurate descriptions of security in Iraq and admitted openly that you had no "Plan B" for Iraq?

My next question for McCain would be "how do you go from calling Jerry Falwell an extremist to being a close friend of his?"

Will I watch the Republican debate? Maybe. I know if I don't I will miss out on a lot of "gotcha" moments that the media is too blind or complicit to notice.

One final question : 600 journalist converged on New Hampshire to cover the Democratic debate, how many journalist will be covering the Republican debate? Also, I wonder who, the Democrats or the Republicans, will have the larger viewing audience?

What The Cheney Did He Just Say?

ThinkProgress is reporting that during a speech to Wyoming High School Vice President Dick Cheney "Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection" and also claimed that the United States was making significant progress in Iraq.

Yup. You guessed it, the VP is coming to a high school near you soon to lie to your children personally...

Never mind that all indicators show that ground is being lost in Iraq and that according to a new military assessment less than one third of Baghdad neighborhoods are under control three months into the so called "surge".

The Vice President also brings up Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and follows with the baseless claim that during fighting in Afganistan Zarqawi was wounded and fled into Baghdad for medical treatment, no one ever bothered to ask why Zarqawi would travel across borders and miles to seek medical treatment when there were cities much closer.

The Bush Administration has used the "Zarqawi was treated by Saddam" card as one of their lies in attempting to connect Iraq to al-Qaeda, claiming that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan and traveled to Baghdad to get medical treatment and a prosthetic leg, possibly a gift from Saddam himself...

But let's examine this debunked claim a moment. Zarqawi would have had to have made it over the Afghanistan border into Iran without being detected, then he would have had to sneak across Iran and make it across the Iraqi border undetected. Seems like quite a feat for a supposedly injured man who should have been bleeding all over the place.

Again, no one asks how a bleeding and injured man, supposedly missing a leg makes it all the way to Baghdad from Afghanistan.

Look at it this way; in miles - (let's not even discuss the difficulties of navigating the harsh mountainous terrain in Afghanistan and Iran and desert conditions in Iran and Iraq)) this would be about the equivalent of going from Kansas to Washington D.C to get medical treatment and going directly over the Appalachians to do it. Do you think you could make it with one missing leg, in which the bleeding must be profuse? Didn't think so.

But what does it matter? We know know Zarqawi never sought medical treatment in Baghdad and it is unlikely he was ever injured in Afghanistan. Why? Because almost a year ago we killed Zarqawi, and the man had both his legs.

Going back even further we see that prior to the Iraq War, Zarqawi and Bin Laden were competitors not allies. This helps prove the United States preemptive war in Iraq has not diminished terrorism, but helped unite some extremist groups who used to be opposed to each other.

But hey, that doesn't stop the Vice President from strolling into a local high school of young, impressionable teens and filling their heads with fairy tales, now does it?

IN FACT

As Think Progress Reports :

"The implication that Zarqawi helped justify the war was thoroughly debunked last year by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Bush loyalist Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS.)

It found:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]"

Dick Cheney proves that there are some people who will refuse to deal in the the truth and insist on dolling out lies even when contradictory evidence has been stapled to their foreheads repeatedly.

Sorry Dick, but history will never vindicate your lies, in fact history may be a crueler judge than we.

Democrats Debate On CNN, It Starts To Get Interesting

Tonight CNN hosted a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, and Democrats got a little more defensive than in the past, some of the cordial niceties of the last debate abandoned.

Number three in the Democratic polls John Edwards confronted Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on their late "No" vote for Iraq spending bill, claiming they showed a lack of leadership by waiting until the last minute to cast their vote.

Edwards appears ready to fight with Democrats to prove his "worth", which may or may not be good decision this early in the race.

Perhaps John Edwards energy would have been better spent confronting Biden for not only his "Yes" vote on the spending bill but also on Biden agreeing to attend a FOX/CBC debate.

But that's silly because John Edwards knows Biden is not a threat, but Hillary and Obama are and that's why he confronted them.

I thought Barack Obama came off very well, his answers seemed well thought out and insightful, showing that his lack of experience is not an indicator of a lack of intelligence or competence.

Even Hillary Clinton gained a few points with me tonight. Not only did she look smashing she stayed on point and appeared much more relaxed than she did in the MSNBC debate.

However, Clinton did come off as a little presumptuous to me when she said "When I become President" rather than "if America elects/chooses me as the next President". But as pointed out to me by a commenter on DailyKos, that is confidence and it is important for candidates to appear certain that they are the next best candidate.

CNN was wise to start the debate on Iraq, security and the War on Terror because these are the issues that Americans are most concerned about today.

"Everybody supports the troops." Obama said, "The best way to support the troops is not to impose a military solution to a political problem in Iraq."

John Edwards touched base on the recent perceived weakness of the newly Democratic Congress when he proclaimed that it is "critical for Congress to stand firm" and that Congress has a "mandate" from the American people to end the war. Indeed.

Hillary didn't speak for all but she spoke for me when she stated "This is George Bush's war, he is responsible for it."

Although Democrats failed to stop George Bush from launching a war on Iraq there is no doubt in my mind that this is George Bush's war, and it is most likely a continuation of his fathers war. It is through and through George Bush's war.

"We are trying to end the war" stated Clinton, even though she plans for troops in Iraq for years to come. Clinton said the United States needs to "put pressure on the Iraqi government" and take away aid when the Iraqi's don't follow threw.

Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut states that Iraq is civil war and that America is "less secure, more vulnerable".

Wolf Blitzer moves on over to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is outspoken about the genocide in Darfur and asks Richardson what if an Iraq pullout leads to genocide.

Richardson states that he believed that there is a civil war in Iraq, reminding the audience that seven Americans died in Iraq today.

Richardson claims he would deauthorize the war, and leave no residual forces, but lets it slip that he would keep troops in Kuwait.

Kucinich steps in saying that the Iraq war has been based on lies and that "no money would end the war, stop the funding. Let's end the war."

Boisterous Joe Biden stated "Your going to end the war when you have a Democratic president." He also claimed that "The only one who has emboldened the enemy is the President."

Hillary later noted that President Bush had no intention of letting the UN inspectors finish looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that she believed that the troops did their job, they searched for WMD, and took down Saddam.

Perhaps trying to balance his earlier confrontation Edwards stated that "Obama deserves credit for being right about war from the beginning"

Edwards could not have been more right when he noted that "We have to reestablish trust between the American people and the President."

But which of these candidates to trust the most? All the top tier candidates seem very desirable and competent to do the job and after six years of Bush rule hearing the Democrats and their common sense was a breath of fresh air.

Though I am pleased with the debate I believe Progressives need to keep putting pressure on the Democrats to do the right thing.

My Questions For The Democrats

Tonight is the Democratic Debate on CNN, which promises to be the first debate to "take questions from the voters".

Well, I am a voter and I have some questions.

1) Some people feel the United States image and popularity has been damaged by not only the wars in the Middle East but also by the United States close and one sided relationship with Israel. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?

2) What is your opinion about lobbying groups and how much influence do you feel they should have on our government?

3) Democrats have campaigned primarily on an antiwar platform but have Democrats reached any consensus on how to end the Iraq War? [To this question I know the answer is "no" so I follow up with the next question]

4) How do Democrats plan on getting the United States out of Iraq if there is no agreement among them on how or when to do it?

5) Democratic candidates have identified themselves to be against the Iraq War, but when push came to shove the majority of Democrats caved in and allowed the president to have his way on the Iraq spending bill. How are voters to be sure if Democratic candidates have true intentions of ending the war, or if it is just the Democratic candidates intentions of using antiwar sentiments to get elected?

6) If indeed your plan is to draw down the Iraq War when would this draw down begin and when could Americans and Iraqi's expect to see all US troops gone by?

7) What are your feelings about permanent bases in Iraq and the Middle East?

8) If elected what are your plans regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay?

9) What do you plan to do about Democrats who endorse torture, like Senator Bill Nelson from Florida?

10) If the Democrats are not strong enough to take on the GOP and hold George W. Bush accountable then why should Americans be convinced the Democrats are strong enough to take on our enemies?

11) If elected, what step would you take to repair America's image and relationships around the world?

12) Illegal immigration and a bill that resembles amnesty. How is this good for the American people?

13) During George W. Bush's presidency America built up a huge debt with China. What would you plan be to reduce and eliminate this debt?

14) Millions of Americans are uninsured and under-insured, how would you address this growing problem?

15) Young people are worried about the future, they see a world sinking deeper into disparity and violence. College education becomes more expensive every year, making it impossible for many young Americans to get an education. They are then told that the social security they have paid into their whole lives may not even be there when they need it. Jobs for under-trained and undereducated people are often given to illegal immigrants, making it seem impossible to get ahead in many situations. America is facing serious problems, it's young people are becoming disenfranchised with the entire system. What makes you feel you are capable not only to address these problems, but fix these problems?

Sheehan Calls It Quits After Repeated Left Hooks

Cindy Sheehan is calling it quits, she cites disillusionment with both political parties as the cause. Read Cindy Sheehan's post at DailyKos for her explanation.

One can imagine many right wingers are championing the ouster of Cindy Sheehan and perhaps even breathing a collective sigh of relief. But it is the beating she took from the Left that appears to have done her in for the count.

Many on the left who used to love Cindy Sheehan turned against her the moment she started putting pressure on Democrats and held the Democrats to the same level of accountability as she had previously held the GOP. Some on the left did not like this and lashed out at Sheehan, instead of the spineless Democrats in Washington DC who are afraid to stand up to Bush.

My honest opinion about Cindy Sheehan?

Personally, from the beginning I found Sheehan to be slightly shrill and I felt that she undermined the antiwar movement and made it look silly.

It didn't take me long to see I was wrong about the latter, what started as a one woman movement gave many others the strength and courage to be openly antiwar. Cindy Sheehan truly did help change the tides.

Perhaps there was a time when I wished Cindy Sheehan would quietly go away, now I see she gave a voice to the antiwar crowd and brought a lot of attention to it.

It is wrong for the Left to lash out at Sheehan because she demands the same level of accountability from the Democrats as she does from the Republicans, that does not make her the enemy.

In fact it is wrong for those who have been antiwar to suddenly turn against Sheehan because she is not having any illusions about the Democratic Party or their intentions of [not] ending the war.

In all truth it is Liberals and Progressives who should be railing the hardest and loudest against the Democrats perceived weakness when it comes to standing up to Bush and the GOP and beginning the end of the war. Right?

Boo-Hoo Boehner

Talk about looking like an emotional wreck - Someone get John Boehner his Prozac, he's losing it again.

ThinkProgress has the video of Boehner's most recent weeping episode.

...

May 24, 2007 marked the second time John Boehner (R-OH) cried in public while addressing the Iraq War. The first time John lost control over his emotions was back in February.

So this is supposed to be the tough guy Conservative with the perfect tan?

Hmph. It appears the man has the emotional frailty of a thirteen year old girl in love. Only Boehner's love is not for a junior high sweetheart, it is a love for the GOP, it a love for the war that he fears may end without a clear Republican victory. That is what John Boehner weeps for.

Boehner even invoked the memory of 9/11 in his wet display of emotion, saying

“After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?”

These terrorist? These terrorist? Meaning the Iraqi's we are fighting in Iraq? Is John Boehner getting his brown people mixed up again?

Because I don't remember any Iraqi's being involved in 9/11. What I do remember was that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabians with box cutters who allegedly trained in Afghanistan.

Attacking Iraq and trying to connect it to 9/11 takes no less of a stretch of the imagination than attacking China and trying to blame it for Pearl Harbor, rather than Japan.

After all this time John Boehner is either that ignorant about who attacked us on September 11, 2001 or he is that deceitful that he is going to try to continue to connect Iraq to 9/11 even though there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing.

You know what I honestly think about this apparent display of emotion?

Boo-hoo Boehner is not crying for the lost integrity of America, he is crying for the lost integrity of the Republican Party.

Boo-hoo Boehner is not weeping for the loss of over 3,000 civilians and over 3,000 soldiers in this Orwellian "war on terror", he is weeping for the loss his political party will face if they are not able to preform magic tricks in the next couple of months in Iraq.

That's what I think John Boehner is really crying about. Either that or he's got a needle he is jamming in his hand to draw tears.

Even if Boehner's emotion was genuine, which I doubt it was, that calls into question his emotional stability.

Question : What's wrong with the picture of a grown Congressman crying as he proclaims he didn't come to Congress to be a Congressman?
Answer : Everything.

Boehner and his Republican colleagues like to accuse the Democrats of "waving the white flag to al Qaeda", but what kind of message does anyone think al Qaeda is sent when a grown Republican Congressman is weeping on the house floor half a decade after 9/11 while he is talking about Iraq?

I bet the weeping Republican is very intimidating to al Qaeda. Did I write intimidating? Oops, I actually meant to write encouraging.

WE VOTED FOR CHANGE IN IRAQ, NOT THE STATUS QUO

Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority to continue to submit to the demands of George W. Bush and the Republican Party?

Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?

Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.

I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.

To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?

The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.

WE DIDN'T ELECT THEM TO COWAR DOWN TO THE GOP AND BUSH. WE ELECTED THEM TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THE GOP AND BUSH.

Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.

The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :

If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?

So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.

I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.

But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.

But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.

Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.

The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.

Don't Give King George Another Blank Check - Vote NO On The Supplemental

It's this plain and this simple : Congress needs to vote "no" on the Iraq Supplemental today.

It's this clear : The Democrats were elected to end this war, if they do not fight Bush and the war machine they will face real political ramifications in 2008 from the people who support them.

If Democrats lose in '08 the war in Iraq will not end.

Gingrich Reaffirms His Radical Reverence For The Right

Gingrich Cites ‘Opportunity’ To ‘Convert All Of America’ To Fundamentalism

Who's Really Irreverent, Reckless And Unfortunate?

Jimmy Carter may have been a bad president but he tried to be a good man who exhibited fairness and honesty that is unmatched by any other former Presidents who are still living.

Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.

But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.

With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.

Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".

But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.

I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.

History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.

The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.

A President elected under controversy.

9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.

The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.

Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.

Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.

The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.

President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.

In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.

Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.

But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.

The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood?

To the US the Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic Extremist group, but to terrorist like Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri the Muslim brotherhood is "lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections ... instead of into the lines of jihad."

Full Story

Loyalty Day, huh? That's pretty absurd considering ...